-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
1
Origins and historical development of the Armenian language
Hrach Martirosyan
Introduction
1. Indo-European origins of Armenian
1.1 General
1.2 The PIE homeland and the dispersal
1.3 The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language
family
1.4 Substrate
1.5 Lexical material
1.6 Preliminary conclusions
1.7 Chronological background: inherited and borrowed
1.8 The first millennium BC: Armenian and Urartian
1.9 The third and second millennia BC
1.10 Cultural excursus: “Dragon stones”
2. The development of the Proto-Indo-European phonemic system in
Armenian 3. Archaisms and innovations of the Armenian nominal
system
4. Archaisms and innovations of the Armenian verbal system
5. Onomastics
Supplement: Armenian dialects: archaisms and innovations
Reading
(1) Introduction
(2) As an Indo-European language, Armenian has been the subject
of research for
about two hundred years.
The high number of Iranian loans led scholars in the mid-19th
century to conclude that Armenian belonged to the Iranian group of
Indo-European
languages.
This opinion prevailed until 1875, when Heinrich Hübschmann
proved that Armenian is an independent branch of the Indo-European
language family.
The later decades are marked by two fundamental studies, namely
Hübschmann 1897 and Meillet 1936, as well as works by a number of
other
scholars such as Pedersen and Lidén.
(3-5) The next phase of comparative-historical Armenian
linguistics starting in the
1930s is notable for several fundamental works of the most
outstanding figure in
Armenological disciplines, Hrač‘ya Ačaṙyan, who successfully
maintained the high
standards of his great teachers, Hübschmann and Meillet. Of his
works we should
mention especially:
“History of the Armenian language” (AčaṙHLPatm 1940-1951),
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
2
Liakatar K‘erakanut‘yun (“Complete grammar”, AčaṙLiak
1952-2005),
and especially his magnificent “Armenian Etymological
Dictionary” (HAB), originally published between 1926 and 1935.
(6) Ačaṙyan’s traditions have been continued by his pupils, such
as Ēduard Ałayan
and Gevorg ahukyan. Especially valuable are “History of the
Armenian language”
( ahukyan 1987) and the posthumously published “Armenian
Etymological
Dictionary” ( ahukyan 2010).
(7) Some handbooks & studies on comparative Armenian
linguistics: Meillet 1936, Godel 1975, Clackson 1994, Olsen 1999,
Kortlandt 2003, Martirosyan 2010.
(8) Ačaṙyan’s corpora roughly reflect the state of research in
the 1940s. Since then:
a large number of critical texts, concordances and dialect
descriptions;
voluminous corpora of inscriptions and colophons of Armenian
manuscripts;
a large amount of lexicological and etymological examinations:
corrections and supplements to HAB, newly found words, revision of
the philological
status of words, many new etymologies.
(9) One of the main tasks of comparative-historical Armenian
linguistics is to newly
re-evaluate Ačaṙyan’s achievements, and to combine them with the
huge amount of
new materials in order to create new corpora, such as:
“History of Armenian Language and Culture”;
“Linguo-Cultural and Etymological Thesaurus of the Armenian
Language and Culture (organized by semantic fields: sky, world,
flora, fauna, kinship,
body parts, craft, arts, poetry, religion, etc.)”.
This work will benefit greatly from the possibilities presented
by modern data
storage and processing techniques.
(10) Main shortcomings that can be observed in etymological
studies is that scholars
often:
neglect internal etymology;
take poorly explained, or unexplained, choices between
conflicting etymologies.
(11) Examples from Mkrtč‘yan 2005 (Нерсес Мкртчян, Семитские
языки и
армянский):
Derives the dialectal word p‘ɛtat ‘hoe, mattock’ from Akkadian
petut ‘implement’.
In fact, its derivation from Classical Armenian p‘aytahat /
p‘aytat ‘wood-cutter; axe, hatchet, mattock’ is impeccable.
Removes native (Indo-European) etymologies of a number of words,
such as arawr
‘plough’ and erekoy ‘evening’ with no solid argumentation,
replacing them with
Semitic explanations.
In fact, the IE etymologies of these words are impeccable:
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
3
PIE *h2rh3trom, cf. Gr. ἄροτρον, Lat. arātrum, MIr. arathar,
Welsh aradr,
OIc. arðr, etc.;
PIE *h1regwos-, cf. Gr. ἔρεβος n. ‘the dark of the underworld’,
Goth. riqis n.
‘darkness, twilight’, etc.
(12) In the last few decades an increasing usage of linguistic
data in the study of
Armenian historical and cultural issues can be observed:
• ideas that violate the most elementary principles of
philological and etymological research;
• Armenian as cognate with or identical to a non-Indo-European
isolated language, such as Sumerian, Basque or Etruscan.
• Armenian as the Indo-European mother tongue or the mother of
all languages in the world.
►It is essential to:
• carry out some work towards popularizing some of the elements
of comparative-historical Armenian linguistics;
• write reviews on at least the most influential
pseudo-scientific publications and present them in academic
journals, as well as in more popular media.
1. Indo-European origins of Armenian
1.1 General
(13) Armenian is genetically related to Indo-European languages
such as Hittite, Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin, Gothic, and
Slavic. Lexical correspondences
belonging to basic vocabulary:
anun, dial. anum ‘name’: Gr. ὄνομα, Lat. nōmen, Skt. nā man-,
Goth. namo
astɫ, asteɫ- ‘star’: Gr. ἀστήρ, Av. star-, Goth. stairno, Lat.
stella, Hitt. ḫasterza
duṙn ‘door’: Skt. ā r-, Gr. ϑύρα, Lat. foris, Welsh dor, Engl.
door, OCS ьrь
dustr ‘daughter’: Skt. duhitár-, Gr. ϑυγάτηρ, Lith. ukt
kin, kanay- ‘woman, wife’: OAv. gənā- ‘woman’, Gr. γυνή, γυναι-,
Goth. qino
kov ‘cow’: Skt. gaúḥ ‘cow, bull’, Latv. gùovs ‘cow’, OCS
gov-ę-do
sirt ‘heart’: OCS srъ ьce, Lith. šir ìs ‘heart’, Goth. hairto
‘heart’
(14) Systematical and consequent phonological agreements:
An initial *s- drops: Arm. ałt ‘salt’ vs. Engl. salt ‘salt’;
Arm. ewt‘n ‘seven’ vs. Skt.
saptá and Lat. septem, etc.
The PIE initial *p- yields Arm. h-, and the intervocalic *-t-
drops:
hayr ‘father’: Skt. pitā , Gr. πατήρ, Lat. pater, OHG fater,
Toch. B pācer
heru ‘last year’: Gr. πέρυσι, Dor. πέρυτι, Skt. parut ‘last
year’
č‘or-k‘ ‘four’: Skt. plur. cátasras, Pers. čahār, Lat. quattuor,
OCS četyre
(15-17) Even more significant are grammatical agreements. Here
are two examples:
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
4
(1) Arm. nominative hayr ‘father’ from PIE *ph2t r = Gr. πατήρ,
Lat. pater;
genitive hawr from PIE *ph2tr-ós = Gr. πατρός, Lat. patris;
instrumental har-b from
*ph2tr -bhi-, cf. Skt. dative plural pit -bhyas;
(2) Arm. present berem ‘to bring, bear’ from PIE *bher-e-: Skt.
bhárati, Lat.
ferō, Gr. φέρω ‘to carry, bear’; 3sg aorist e-ber from PIE
*é-bher-et = Skt. á-bhar-at,
Gr. ἔ-φερ-ε.
1.2 The PIE homeland and the dispersal
(18) Speakers of the Indo-European cognate languages once spoke
the same
language, which we conventionally call Proto-Indo-European.
Furthermore, they
once lived in a defined geographical area, the PIE homeland
(Urheimat), the
location of which has not yet been established. The dispersal of
PIE is dated to about
4000–3000 BC by most scholars and a few millennia earlier by the
followers of the
Anatolian model.
(19) PIE homeland (Urheimat): Various locations have been
proposed (see the map,
Mallory 1989: 144):
(20) The archaeological material and the linguistic relationship
between the Indo-
Iranian and the Finno-Ugric languages seem to favour the view
according to which,
after the dispersal, the ancestors of the Indo-Iranian languages
were once in contact
with those of the Finno-Ugric languages somewhere in the
southern Urals. However,
this would make it hard to explain the close relationship
between the Indo-Iranians
and Proto-Armenians, if the latter would have been in the Near
East around the 3rd
millennium BC. Besides, even more impressive lexical
correspondences between
Armenian and Greek, both shared innovations and substrate words
especially in the
domains of agriculture and technical activities, imply a long
and multistage stay of
Proto-Armenians in the regions not very far from the Black
Sea.
(21) Therefore, even if one accepts the Near-Eastern origin of
the Indo-Europeans, it
is hard to claim that the PIE dispersal took place in the Near
East, and that the Proto-
Armenians stayed there all the time. Efforts have been made to
reconcile the two
theories within a chronological framework implying two phases:
an earlier stage (in
the Near East) and a later stage (north of the Caucasus
mountains and the Black
Sea).
1.3 The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language
family
(22) The linguistic evidence allows to draw the following
preliminary conclusions
on the place of Armenian in the Indo-European language family.
Armenian, Greek,
(Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally close to each other
or even formed a
dialectal group at the time of the Indo-European dispersal.
Within this hypothetical
dialect group, Proto-Armenian was situated between Proto-Greek
(to the west) and
Proto-Indo-Iranian (to the east).
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
5
(23) There are a large number of connections between Armenian,
Greek and Indo-
Iranian on the one hand (set A), and between Armenian and Greek
on the other (set
B). The latter set of lexical agreements also involves European
branches of the Indo-
European language family, a large portion of which should be
explained in terms of
substrate rather than Indo-European heritage.
(24) Method
Archaic features and independent developments are not
significant for determining a
close genetic relationship between two languages or dialects.
Instead, one should
rely on shared innovations from the outset. The drawback with
this method: there is
often (if not always) the possibility of independent innovations
yielding similar
results. Nevertheless, the cumulative evidence decreases the
likelihood of chance in
such cases.
(25) When an etymon is only found in two or three non-contiguous
dialects, it may
theoretically represent an archaic PIE lexeme that has been lost
elsewhere and is
thus not significant for our purpose.
But when an etymon appears in a few dialects that can be
regarded as contiguous at
a certain stage, we should take it seriously even if the etymon
has no PIE origin and
cannot be thus treated as a shared innovation in the genetic
sense.
Two Indo-European dialects that were spoken in the same
geographical area at a
period shortly before and/or after the Indo-European dispersal
could both develop
shared innovations as a result of their interaction with
neighbouring non-Indo-
European languages.
1.4 Substrate
(26) After the Indo-European dispersal Proto-Armenian would have
continued to
come into contact with genetically related Indo-European
dialects.
• Simultaneously, it would certainly also have been in contact
with neighbouring non-Indo-European languages.
• A word can be of a substrate origin if it is characterized by:
1. limited geographical distribution;
2. unusual phonology and word formation;
3. characteristic semantics (mostly: plant names, animal names,
cultural words).
(27) The consonantal correspondences between substrate words in
Armenian and
other languages are of two kinds:
(28) 1. archaic, matching the correspondences of the native
Indo-European heritage:
• *-ri - > Arm. -rǰ- and *g/gw > Arm. k, e.g. Arm. anurǰ
‘dream’ vs. Gr.
ὄνε/οιρος, Arm. kamurǰ ‘bridge’ vs. Gr. γέφῡρα;
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
6
• *k > Arm. s, e.g. Arn. siseṙn ‘chick pea’ vs. Lat. cicer
‘chick pea’, Arm. siwn ‘column, pillar’ vs. Gr. ων;
• *ĝ > Arm. c, e.g. Arm. erbuc ‘breast of animals’ vs. Gr.
φάρυγξ, gen. -υγος, -υγγος ‘throat, dewlap’;
• *p- > Arm. h- or zero, e.g. Arm. aɫawni (*aɫawun), ea-stem
‘pigeon, dove’ vs. Lat. pa um s ‘wood-pigeon, ring-dove’ (*p
h2-b
h-ōn, gen. *-b
h-n-os);
Arm. hec‘, gen. hec‘-i ‘felloe’, if from *pe k -s, cf. OHG
felga, OEngl.
felg(e) ‘felloe’, etc.; Arm. ort‘, o-stem ‘vine’ vs. Gr.
π(τ)όρθος ‘sprout’.
(29) 2. relatively young:
• *k > Arm. k, e.g. Arm. kaɫamax(i) ‘white poplar, aspen’ vs.
Hesychian αλαμίνδαρ ‘plane’; karič ‘scorpion’, dial. ‘crayfish’ vs.
Gr. ᾱρίς
‘crayfish’;
• *p- > Arm. p, e.g. Arm. pal ‘rock’ vs. OIr. ail ‘cliff’
< *pal-i-, MIr. all < *p s -, Gr. πέλλα ‘rock’;
• *s > Arm. s (unless these words have been borrowed from
lost satəm-forms in *k ), e.g. Arm. sayl, i-stem and o-stem ‘wagon;
Ursa Major and Minor,
Arcturus’ vs. Gr. σατίνη f. ‘chariot’ and Hesychian σάτιλλα·
πλειὰς τὸ
ἄστρον, the constellation being regarded as a car (considered to
be of
Phrygian or Thracian origin); Arm. sring ‘pipe, fife’ vs. Gr.
σῦριγξ, -ιγγος f.
‘shepherd’s pipe, panpipe’, which is considered to be of
Phrygian or
Mediterranean origin.
1.5 Lexical material
(30) I present the material in summarizing tables divided into
semantic fields.
Wherever a lexical agreement is likely to be an innovation
rather than an isolated
etymon, I mark it by shading.
(31) Table set A: Lexical isoglosses: Armenian, Greek and
Indo-Iranian
(32) Table set B: Lexical isoglosses: Armenian, Greek, etc.
(33) Collation of the two sets
• Both sets have a roughly equal number of lexical agreements in
the semantic fields of, e.g., physical world, fauna, animal
husbandry and
human body.
• As far as the domains of flora and agriculture are concerned,
however, in A we find zero and five lexemes respectively, whereas B
has 13 lexemes for
each domain.
• Especially remarkable are sets of correspondences within a
narrow semantic group, e.g. the three designations of plants of the
legume family,
all of Mediterranean origin: ṙn ‘pea, bean’, ospn ‘lentil’, and
siseṙn
‘chick pea’. Interestingly, all three Armenian words display an
additional -n
and belong to the an-declension class.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
7
(34) Another remarkable difference is that, in the domain of
technical activities, set
A has lexemes with more general meanings, such as ‘bond’,
‘grave’ and ‘threshold’,
whereas B displays a number of specific technical terms such as
‘bridge’, ‘drying
implement’, ‘hinge’, ‘pillar’, ‘potter’s wheel’ and ‘rein’.
(35) Without Greek:
On the other hand, there are a number of lexical agreements
between Armenian,
Balto-Slavic and Germanic or Celtic especially in the domain of
physical world.
This might indicate that at a certain stage Armenian shared the
same geographical
environments with European dialects.
1.6 Preliminary conclusions (36)
• Armenian, Greek, (Phrygian) and Indo-Iranian were dialectally
close to each other or even formed a dialectal group at the time of
the Indo-
European dispersal.
• Within this hypothetical dialect group, Proto-Armenian was
situated between Proto-Greek (to the west) and Proto-Indo-Iranian
(to the east). On
the northern side it might have neighboured, notably,
Proto-Germanic and
Proto-Balto-Slavic. After the Indo-European dispersal, Armenian
developed
isoglosses with Indo-Iranian on the one hand and Greek on the
other.
• The Indo-Iranians then moved eastwards, while the
Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks remained in a common geographical
region for a long period
and developed numerous shared innovations. At a later stage,
together or
independently, they borrowed a large number of words from
the
Mediterranean / Pontic substrate language(s), mostly cultural
and
agricultural words, as well as animal and plant
designations.
1.7 Chronological background: inherited and borrowed
(37) The Armenian lexicon comprises three major layers:
(1) Indo-European heritage: 5th-4th millennia BC;
(2) late Indo-European and Mediterranean/European substrate:
3rd-2nd
millennia BC;
(3) loanwords from neighbouring languages, such as Caucasian,
Anatolian,
Hurrian, Urartian, Semitic and especially Iranian: 2nd-1st
millennia BC to the
present.
The first two layers belong to prehistoric times, whereas the
third belongs to the
most recent period and is partially elucidated by historical
records.
1.8 The first millennium BC: Armenian and Urartian
(38) For a long time it was the common opinion of scholars that
speakers of
Armenian migrated into the Armenian Highlands after the fall of
the Urartian
Empire in the 6th century BC. However, the presence of the
Armenian language in
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
8
the Armenian Highlands prior to the Urartian Empire is confirmed
particularly by
Armenian loanwords in Urartian, such as:
(39)
• Urart. arṣi i- from Arm. arcui ‘eagle’ < *h2r ĝipi -, cf.
Skt. r ipy - ‘epithet of an eagle’, m. ‘eagle’, etc.;
• Urart. abili-d(u) ‘to join, increase’ from Arm. awel- ‘to
increase’ < *h3bhel-,
cf. Gr. ὀφέλλω ‘to increase, enlarge, augment, advance’;
• Urart. ṣûə c (w)ə] ‘(inland) sea’ from Arm. cov ‘sea’ possibly
from *ĝ h-,
compare Ir. gó ‘sea’ (cf. Ir. bó vs. Arm. kov ‘cow’), perhaps
also OIc. kaf
‘sea’, etc.;
• Urart. qaburzani ‘bridge’ vs. Arm. kamurǰ, a-stem ‘bridge’
from *gʷ(e)m/
huri eh2 ‘bridge’, cf. Gr. γέφῡρα f. ‘bridge’.
(40) Armenisms in the Urartian language are not limited purely
to lexical
correspondences.
►Morphology:
• Urartian me(i) reflects the Armenian prohibitive particle mi,
which derives from PIE *meh1, cf. Skt. mā , Av. mā, Gr. μή, Alb.
mo, Toch. AB mā.
• Urartian conjunction e-’a ‘and, also, or’, (not known in
Hurrian) may be read e-wi and identified with Arm. ew ‘and, also’
< PIE *h1e/opi ‘by, at, on,
to’, cf. Gr. ἔπι, ἐπί ‘on it, at it, by, at the same time’,
etc.
►Toponymy:
• Urart. uaraṣini ḫubi and Armenian Tuarac-a-tap‘ ►
KUREtiuni/Etiuḫi, a country attested in Urartian sources of the
9th to 7th centuries
BC, which basically corresponds with the Ayrarat province of
Greater Armenia
• Diuṣini/Ṭiuṣini ‘Divine-born’, cf. Gr. Διο-γενής / Διο-γένης,
Thrac. Diuzenus, etc.
(41) Armenian giwł ‘village’ and Urartian ueli ‘crowd, army’
Urartian ueli ‘crowd, army’ from PArm. *wel-i- > *gel-i-:
giwł ‘village’, gen. geɫ-ǰ <
*we -i -óh, etc.; cf. Gr. ἁλίη, Dor. ἀλία ‘assembly of people’,
(ϝ)άλις adv. ‘in crowds,
in plenty’ < *u -i-s
● Semantic shift ‘crowd’ > ‘village’: cf. Skt. gra ma-
‘military host, village
community’, Pol. gromada ‘multitude, heap, village community’;
Kurd. gund
‘village’ vs. Pers. gund ‘crowd, army’ (also Armenian gund).
(42) Urartian hieroglyphic script: Karagyozyan
A hieroglyphic inscription on a bronze vessel is read as Ur-sa-a
(Rusa): interprets the first sign as an ideogram meaning “horse”,
Arm. ors. However:
• Arm. ors always means ‘hunt, catch’ or ‘hunted animal, game’,
never ‘horse’.
• Xorenac‘i 2.61: Et‘ u y rs hecc‘is “If you mount for (or go)
hunting” (i + acc. purpose; cf. Xorenac‘i 2.9: hecanel yors ew i
paterazmuns “to ride out
to hunt or to war”).
• Not related with English horse (from *k/k (e)rs-, cf. Lat.
currō ‘to run’, OIr. carr ‘vehicle’, MHG hurren ‘hasten’).
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
9
(43) West Armenian horsak ‘midday’: Karagyozyan claims that the
(alleged)
meaning ‘horse’ of Armenian ors developed to ‘sun’, which in
turn yielded ‘midday’
This is a violation of the principles of internal etymology. In
fact, WArm. horsak
‘midday’ is inseparable from: Polis ɔharsag, Adabazar ɔ arsag,
Nor-Naxiǰewan
ɔrassag, Ṙodost‘o orarsag, etc., all meaning ‘midday’ and
clearly reflecting
Classical Armenian ōr-hasarak, an actually attested compound of
ōr ‘day’ and
hasarak ‘half’.
1.9 The third and second millennia BC
(44) We have seen that the presence of the Armenian language in
the Armenian
Highlands in the beginning of the 1st millennium is undeniable.
It is also possible
that it was also present in the 2nd millennium BC, albeit much
harder to prove. Even
more difficult is the situation with the 3rd millennium BC. In
the following sections,
I will briefly present a number of comments on this topic.
• ai aša- (attested in Hittite texts from the 14-13th centuries
BC) vs. the ethnonym hay ‘Armenian’.
► Etymologies of hay:
• 1) ai aša- (from PIE *h2eios- ‘copper, iron’; cf. Gr. χάλυψ
‘hardened iron, steel’, the appellative of the Chalybes);
• 2) atti; • 3) IE *poti- ‘master’.
(45) Ancient Armenisms in the Kartvelian languages • Kartv.
*ɣwin - ‘wine’ from PArm. *ɣweini - (cf. gini, gen. ginwoy) ‘wine’
<
PIE *u e/oi(H)no-: Hitt. u ii an- c. ‘wine’, Gr. (ϝ)οἶνος m.
‘wine’, Lat. īnum
ī, n. ‘wine’, etc.
• Kartv. *ɣwi- ‘juniper’ from PArm. *ɣwi- (gi ‘juniper’) < *u
i(H)-t-, cf. Gr. ϝ τέα ‘willow’, etc.
• Georgian phoni, Mingr. phoni, etc. ‘riverbed’ from PArm.
*ponth- (cf. Arm. hun ‘ford, shallow, riverbed’ < PIE *pontH-)
at an early stage before the
sound changes *-oN- > -uN- and *p- > *f- > h-.
• More examples of possible Kartvelisms can be found in ahukyan
1988, 2: 68-70.
(46) Ancient Armenisms in the Anatolian languages? ahukyan
(1988, 2: 85, see also 1: 70) treats a number of Hittite words as
loanwords
from Armenian, such as:
• Hitt. luzzi- n. ‘forced service, public duty, corvée’ from
Arm. luc ‘yoke; burden of forced service and taxes, subjection;
bondage’ (from PIE ‘yoke’,
cf. Skt. yugá-, Gr. ζυγόν, Lat. iugum, etc.; the initial l- has
been explained
by influence of luc-anem ‘to unbind, loosen’).
1.10 Cultural excursus:
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
10
(47) “Dragon stones” (Arm. išapak‘ar, composed of išap ‘dragon’
and k‘ar ‘stone’)
“Višap stones”
1. Map, designed by Anush Martirosyan and Tsovinar
Martirosyan
2. Some “višaps”, drawn from Barsełyan 1967 by Rafayel
Martirosyan
(48) Stone stelae found in high-altitude summer pastures in the
northern and
northeastern regions of the Armenian highland (i.e. the
historical provinces of Tayk‘,
Gugark‘, Ayrarat and Syunik‘). They are interpreted as monuments
related to
mortuary rituals and belong to the Middle Bronze Age (ca.
2200-1600 BCE). Some
are shaped in the form of a fish, on others the head and hide of
a sacrificed bovid are
depicted, while a third class represents a combination of both
previous types.
(49) The genealogical framework of the Vishap stones and their
semantics is
complex and multilayered: Indo-European elements (compare the
so-called “Head
and Hooves” ritual burial in Sredny Stog, Yamna, Catacomb,
Srubna and other
cultures) have been combined with cultural features that are
observable in other
Caucasian and Near Eastern traditions.
2. The development of the Proto-Indo-European
phonemic system in Armenian
(50-53) The Armenian alphabet and the phonemic system
Ա ա a 1 α Ժ ժ ž 10 Ճ ճ č 100 Ռ ռ ṙ 1000 ρ
Բ բ b 2 β Ի ի i 20 ι Մ մ m 200 μ Ս ս s 2000 σ
Գ գ g 3 γ Լ լ l 30 Յ յ y 300 Վ վ v 3000
Դ դ d 4 δ Խ խ x 40 Ն ն n 400 ν Տ տ t 4000 τ
Ե ե e 5 ε Ծ ծ c 50 Շ շ š 500 ξ Ր ր r 5000
Զ զ z 6 ζ Կ կ k 60 κ Ո ո o 600 ο Ց ց c‘ 6000
Է է ē 7 η Հ հ h 70 Չ չ č‘ 700 Ւ ւ w 7000 υ
Ը ը ə 8 Ձ ձ j 80 Պ պ p 800 π Փ փ p‘ 8000 φ
Թ թ t‘ 9 θ Ղ ղ ł 90 λ Ջ ջ ǰ 900 Ք ք k‘ 9000 χ
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
11
Հ.-ե. Հայ. Հ.-ե. Հայ. Հ.-ե. Հայ. labials *p հ-/Ø-, -ւ-, (ս)պ *b
պ *b
h բ, -ւ- dentals *t թ, -ւ-/-Ø-, (ս)տ *d տ *d
h դ palatals *k ս *ĝ ծ *ĝ
h ձ, զ labiovelars *kw ք/չ *g
w կ/ճ *gwh գ/ջ
*s+K ց
sibilant *s հ-/Ø-, ս(C)
laryngeals *h1 Ø-/ե- *h2 հ-/ա- *h3 հ-/ա- liquids *r (ե/ա)ր-,
-ր/ռ- *l (ե/ա)ղ-, -լ/ղł-
nasals *m մ *n ն, -մ(P)
semivowels *i ի՛/Ø-՛ *u ու՛/Ø-՛
*i Ø, (R)ջ *ṷ գ-, -գ/ւ-, -ւ
vowels *e ե, ի(N) *a/h2 ա *o ո, ու(N) * /eh1 ի *ā/eh2 ա *ō/eh3
ու diphthongs *ei է *ai այ *oi է (այ?) *eu ոյ *au աւ (օ) *ou ու
(այ?)
(54) Accent; vowel mutations
An inherited Indo-European musical accent changed into an
intensity accent which
was fixed on the prehistoric penultimate syllable. This was
followed by apocope of
the posttonic vocalic elements (leaving the accent in final
position) and by syncope
in pretonic position, e.g. gen.sg. *sirtíyo > *sirtí >
s(ə)rti ‘of the heart’.
Certain vowels change according to their position on a stressed
or a non-stressed
syllable.
1. The vowels i and u disappear (become an unwritten Ə ǝ):
• sírt ‘heart’, gen. srt-í • súrb ‘pure, clean; holy’, gen.
srbóy, srbém ‘I clean’
2. The vowel ē, etymologically *ei, a diphthong) becomes i:
• s r ‘love’, gen. siróy, sirém ‘I love’ 3. The diphthongs oy
[pronounced as /uy/]) and ea [pronounced as /ya/]) become u
and e, respectively:
• lóys /lúys/ ‘light’, gen. lusóy • leárd /lyárd/ ‘liver’, abl.
i erd
(55) PIE laryngeals: PIE *HV- (H = any laryngeal, V = any
vowel)
PIE Arm. Hitt. Skt. Av. Gr. Lat.
*h1e- (*e-) e- e- a- a- ε- e-
*h2e- (*a-) ha- ḫa- a- a- α- a-
*h3e- (*o-) ho- ḫa- a- a- ο- o-
*Ho- (*o-) o- a- a- a- ο- o-
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
12
(56) PIE *h1e-
*h1es-mi, *h1es-si, *h1es-ti ‘to be’: Arm. em, es, ē, Hitt. šmi
šši šzi, Skt. ásmi ási
ásti, OAv. ahmī, Gr. εἰμί, εἶ (Dor. ἐσσί), ἐστί, Lat. sum es
est, OCS esmь, OLith.
esmì, etc.
(57) PIE *h2e-
*h2en-: Arm. han, o-stem (gen. han-o-y), han-i, wo-stem
(hanw-o-) ‘grandmother’,
Hitt. ḫanna- ‘grandmother’, Gr. ἀννίς ‘mother-in-law’, Lat. anus
‘old woman’, Lith.
anýta ‘husband’s mother’, etc.
*h2erh3-u er/n-: Arm. harawunk‘ ‘sowing, seeds; sowing-field;
arable land’, Gr.
ἄρουρα f. ‘tilled or arable land; pl. corn-lands, fields’; Skt.
ur rā- f. ‘arable land,
field yielding crop’, Av. uruuarā- f. pl. ‘food plant, plant,
ground covered with
plants, flora’; MIr. arbor, nom.pl. arbanna, OIr. gen. arbe
‘grain, corn’, etc.
*h2éu -i- (genitive *h2u -éi-s) ‘bird’: Arm. haw1, u-stem ‘bird;
rooster; hen’, Lat. avis,
-is f. ‘bird’, cf. Gr. αἰετός < *awi-etos m. ‘eagle’, Skt.
váy-, nom. éḥ/ íḥ, acc. vím,
gen. éḥ, nom.pl. yaḥ, ins.pl. í hiḥ m. ‘bird’, YAv. vaii- m.
‘bird’, etc.
*h2eu -: Arm. haw2, o-stem, u-stem ‘grandfather, ancestor’,
Hitt. ḫuḫḫaš
‘grandfather’, Lat. avus ‘grandfather’, OIr. aue ‘grandson’,
Goth. awo
‘grandmother’, Lith. avýnas ‘maternal uncle’, OPr. awis ‘id.’,
Russ. uj, Pol. wuj
‘maternal uncle’, SCr. āk, etc.
(58) PIE *h3e-
*h3eu i- ‘sheep’: Arm. *hovi- ‘sheep’, CLuw. hāu i-, Skt. ávi-,
Gr. ὄ ς, ὄ ος and οἰός, Lat. ovis, Toch. B ā(u)w ‘ewe’ and eye,
etc. Preserved in Arm. hoviw, a-stem
‘shepherd’ < *h3eui-peh2-, a compound of PIE *h3eui- ‘sheep’
and *peh2(s)- ‘to
protect, pasture’: OCS pasti ‘to pasture’, Lat. pāscō ‘to
pasture’, Hitt. paḫš- ‘to
protect’, etc.; for the compound, cf. Skt. g -pā - m. ‘herdsman’
< ‘*cowherd’,
avi-pā - ‘shepherd’.
*h3edos-: Arm. hot, o-stem ‘smell, odour’, Gr. ὀδμή ‘smell’,
Lat. odor, ōris m.
‘smell, scent, odour; perfume’, etc.
(59) PIE *HC- (H = any laryngeal, C = any consonant)
The so-called “prothetic vowel”, viz. Gr. ἀ- (and ὀ-) and Arm.
a-, Gr. ἐ- and Arm. e-
vs. zero in other languages, is now interpreted as a vocalized
reflex of PIE initial
laryngeal followed by a consonant.
(60) PIE *h1C-
*h1regw-e/os-, s-stem neuter: Arm. erek, old gen. erekoy (note
erek-oy, i-stem
‘evening’, and a few derivatives based on *ereko-r-), ere/ik-un
‘evening’, Skt.
rájas- n. ‘space, air; space between heaven and earth’, synonym
of ant rikṣa- (cf.
also rájas- n. ‘dust, mist, vapour, gloom, dirt’, rajasá-
‘unclean, dark’, OAv. ra iš- n.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
13
‘darkness’), Gr. ἔρεβος n. ‘the dark of the underworld’, Goth.
riqis/z n. ‘darkness,
twilight’, OIc. røkkr n. ‘darkness’ < PGerm. *rekwiz-.
(61) PIE *h2C-
*h2le/o(u)pek -: Arm. aɫuēs, gen. aɫues-u ‘fox’, Gr. ἀλώπηξ, -ε
ος ‘fox’, Skt. pāś -
probably ‘fox’, etc.
*h2reu -i-: Arm. arew, u-stem, old gen. areg ‘sun; sunlight;
life’: Areg k‘aɫak‘ ‘the
city of the Sun’ (Gr. ‘Ηλίου πόλις, e.g. Genesis 41.45, 50),
areg, gen. aregi ‘the 8th
month’, areg ‘eastern’, areg-akn ‘sun’, etc.; Skt. ravi- m.
‘sun, sun-god’
(Upaniṣad+), ravi-putra- m. ‘son of the Sun’ (K haka-Br hma a);
cf. also Hitt.
ḫaru(u a)nae-zi ‘to become bright, get light, dawn’.
*h2ster- ‘star’: Arm. astɫ, gen. asteɫ ‘star’, Hitt. ḫaster(a)-,
nom. ḫasterza c., Gr.
ἀστήρ, -έρος, pl. ἀστέρες m. (also old coll. ἄστρα), Skt.
nom.pl. tā raḥ (the absence of
the s- is unexplained), instr. st - hiḥ, Av. star- m., Lat.
stella f. ‘star’, Goth. stairno,
etc.
(62) PIE *h3C-
*h3neid-: Arm. anicanem, 3sg.aor. an c ‘to curse’ < PIE sigm.
aor. *h3neid-s-, anēc-
k‘ ‘curse, imprecation’, Skt. ned-: pres. níndati, aor. nin
iṣur, desid. nínits- ‘to
revile; to blame; to mock’, YAv. 1sg.pres.act. nāismī ‘to curse’
(prob. from *nāi -s-
mi), Gr. ὄνειδος n. ‘reprimand, abuse’, Lith. níe ti ‘to
despise’, etc.
*h3néh3-mn PD n-stem ‘name’ > PArm. *anuwn > anun, gen.
anuan ‘name’ (dial.
also anum, anəm), obl. *h3nh3-mén- (> *anumán > dial.
*anum-): Hitt. āman n.,
HLuw. álaman- n., Lyc. a man-, Skt. nā man- n., MPers. NPers.
nām, Gr. ὄνομα,
-ατος n., Lat. nōmen, -inis n., Goth. namo, OCS imę, etc.
3. Archaisms and innovations of the Armenian nominal
system
(63) Accusative pl. -s
Classical Armenian accusative plural ending -s < PIE *-ns,
with a regular loss of the
nasal; e.g. eris < PIE *trins: Goth. þrins, cf. nom. ere-k‘
‘three’ from PIE *trei es
‘three’: Skt. tráyas, Gr. τρεῖς, etc.
Note also ar-s from PIE acc.pl. *anr ns vs. nom. ayr ‘man’ <
PIE *h2n r: Gr. ἀνήρ,
etc.
(64) Archaic genitives
aṙn from *arnos < *anros < PIE *h2nr-ós: Gr. ἀνδρός; cf.
nom. ayr ‘man; husband’
< PIE *h2n r: Gr. ἀνήρ, etc.
hawr from PIE *ph2tr-ós: Gr. πατρός, Lat. patris; cf. nom. hayr
‘father’ < PIE
*ph2t r: Gr. πατήρ, Lat. pater
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
14
k‘eṙ from PIE *su esr-ós, cf. nom. k‘ yr < PIE *su esōr
‘sister’
Note also PIE gen.sg. *-osyo-: Skt. -asya, Gr. -οιο, Arm. -oy,
etc.
(65) Instrumental
Arm. instrumental ending -w / -(m)b derives from PIE *-bhi, cf.
instr.pl.: Skt. -bhis,
Av. - īš, OPers. - iš; dat.abl.pl.: Skt. -bhyas, Av. - yō;
Homeric Greek attests -φι- as
a marker of the ablative, instrumental and locative in both
singular and plural
markers; cf. also Lat. dat.abl.pl. -bus, OIr. dat.pl. -b,
etc.
eri-w- < *tri-bhi: Skt. dat.abl.pl. tribhyás; cf. nom. ere-k‘
‘three’ from PIE *trei es:
Skt. tráyas, Gr. τρεῖς, etc.
har-b from *ph2tr -bhi-: Skt. dative plural pit -bhyas; cf. nom.
hayr ‘father’ < PIE
*ph2t r: Gr. πατήρ, Lat. pater;
jer-b continues *je(h)ar-b < *ĝhesr -b
hi vs. nom. jeṙ-n ‘hand’ from *ĝ
hes-r-; note the
analogical instr. eṙ-am-b
k‘er-b derives from *su es-r -bhi, cf. PIE nom. *su esōr
‘sister’ > Arm. k‘ yr (*-ehō- >
*-e(h)u- > -oy-).
(66) Noun inflection: gorc ‘work’, sirt ‘heart’, cov ‘sea’
o-stem i-stem u-stem
Sg N gorc sirt cov
Acc (z)gorc (z)sirt (z)cov
GD gorcoy srti covu
Abl i gorcoy i srt i cov
I gorcov srtiw covu
Pl N g rck‘ sirtk‘ c k‘
Acc (z)gorcs (z)sirts (z)covs
GD gorcoc‘ srtic‘ covuc‘
Abl i gorcoc‘ i srtic‘ i covuc‘
I gorco k‘ srtiwk‘ covuk‘
(67) Armenian o-stems k‘un, o-stem ‘sleep’ < *su p-no-: Skt.
svápna- m. ‘sleep, dream’, Av. x
vafna- m.
‘sleep, dream’, Gr. ὕπνος ‘sleep’, Lat. somnus ‘sleep’, Lith.
sãpnas ‘dream’, OCS
sъnъ ‘sleep’, etc.
gin, o-stem ‘price, purchase price’ < *u es-no-: Skt. vasná-
n. ‘purchase price’, Lat.
num n. in the formula num are ‘to put up for sale’, cf. Gr. ὦνος
‘purchase
price’ and the verbal form in Hittite, u āš- ‘to buy’.
gorc, o-stem ‘work, labour’ (cf. gorcem ‘to work, labour; to
make, produce’) <
*u e/ rĝ m: Gr. ϝέργον n. ‘work, labour, work of art’, OHG werc
‘work’, Av. ərəz-
‘to do, work’, etc. The vocalism of Arm. gorc is taken from the
verb gorcem, an old
iterative (cf. Goth. waurk and waurkjan vs. OEngl. werk, OHG
werc, Gr. ϝέργον,
etc.).
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
15
erg, o-stem ‘song; poem; playing (music); scoffing song’ (cf.
ergem ‘to sing; to play
a musical instrument’) < *h1erkw-o-: Skt. thematic noun arká-
m. ‘ray, light, shine;
song, magic song’; cf. PIE *h1erkw-/*h1rk
w-: Hitt. ārku-
zi, arku- ‘to chant, intone’;
Skt. root noun c- f. ‘song of praise, poem, stanza, verse’,
árcati ‘to sing; to praise;
to shine’, Toch. A yärk, B yarke ‘worship, reverence’, probably
also OIr. erc ‘sky’.
(68) Armenian a-stems am, a-stem ‘year, age’ < *s(e)m-eh2-:
Skt. s mā- ‘year, season’, cf. YAv. ham-, OIr.
sam, etc. ‘summer’.
hoviw, a-stem ‘shepherd’ < *h3eui-peh2- (cf. Skt. g -pā - m.
‘herdsman’ <
‘*cowherd’, avi-pā - ‘shepherd’) = PIE *h3eui- ‘sheep’ (CLuw.
hāu i-, Skt. ávi-,
Lat. ovis, etc.) + *peh2(s)- ‘to protect, pasture’ (OCS pasti
‘to pasture’, Lat. pāscō
‘to pasture’, Hitt. paḫš- ‘to protect’, etc.)
(69) Armenian n-stems anun, gen. anuan ‘name’, dial. *anum <
PIE *Hneh3-mn, obl. *Hn(e)h3-men-: Hitt.
āman n., HLuw. álaman- n., Lyc. a man-, Skt. nā man- n., Pers.
nām, Gr. ὄνομα,
-ατος n., Lat. nōmen, -inis n., Goth. namo, OCS imę, etc.
aṙn ‘wild ram’ (acc.pl. z-aṙin-s) < PIE *h1r s-en- ‘male,
male animal (bull, stallion,
ram)’: Gr. ἄρσην, -ενος, Att. ἄρρην adj. ‘male’, Av. aršan- m.
‘man, male’, OPers.
aršan- ‘male, hero, bull’, cf. Skt. r ṣa h - m. ‘bull’.
gaṙn, in/an-stem: gen. gaṙin, instr. gaṙam-b, nom.pl. gaṙin-k‘,
gen.dat.pl. gaṙan-c‘
‘lamb’ < PIE *u r h1 n, gen. *u r h1no-: Skt. úran-, nom.
úrā, acc. úraṇam m. ‘lamb’,
NPers. barra ‘lamb’ < PIr. *varn-aka-, Gr. ἀρήν m., ϝαρην
‘lamb’, πολύ-ρρην-ες
‘possessing many lambs’ < IE *-urh1-n-, etc.
(70) Armenian ł- and r-stems astɫ, gen. asteɫ, instr. asteł-b
‘star’ < PIE *h2ster- ‘star’: Hitt. ḫaster(a)-, nom.
ḫasterza c., Gr. ἀστήρ, -έρος, pl. ἀστέρες m. (also old coll.
ἄστρα), Skt. nom.pl.
tā raḥ, instr. st -bhiḥ, Av. star- m., Lat. stella f. ‘star’,
Goth. stairno, etc.
dustr, gen. dster, gen.pl. dster-c‘ or dster-a-c‘, instr.pl.
dster-aw-k‘ ‘daughter’ < PIE
*dhugh2-t r ‘daughter’: Skt. duhitár-, Gr. ϑυγάτηρ, Lith. ukt ,
etc.
(71) Relics of the PIE neuter in Armenian
• PIE heteroclitic *-(u)r/n- declension: nom. *péh2ur, gen.
*ph2uén-s n. ‘fire’: Hitt. paḫḫur, gen. paḫḫuenaš, Gr. πῦρ, πῠρός,
OHG fuir, Goth. fon <
*pu ōn. The old nominative in *-r: Armenian hur fire’,
thematicized (gen.
hr-o-y, instr. hr-o-v), but also an archaic instrumental
hur-b.
• Next to this: PIE oblique stem *ph2u(e)n- > Armenian *hun-
in hn-oc‘ ‘oven, furnace’.
• Further development of the -(u)r/n- paradigm in Armenian: asr,
gen. asu ‘wool, fleece’, barjr, gen.sg. barj-u, gen.pl. barjan-c‘
‘high’, etc.
• Arm. artasu-k‘, a-stem (gen.pl. artasu-a-c‘) ‘tear’ from * r k
u-: Gr. δά ρυ n., OHG zahar (beside trahan), etc. The Armenian
plural stem *artasu-a-
may reflect an old neuter plural * rak u-h2.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
16
4. Archaisms and innovations of the Armenian verbal
system
(71) Present indicative paradigm of PIE *bher- ‘to bring, bear’.
Note the loss of
intervocalic *-t- in 3sg. *bhér-e-ti > Arm. *berey(i) > er
.
Proto-IE Armenian Sanskrit Greek Gothic OCS 1sg *bhér-o-h2 berem
h rāmi φέρω baira berǫ
2sg *bhér-e-si beres bhárasi φέρεις bairis ereši
3sg *bhér-e-ti er bhárati φέρει bairiþ beretъ
1pl *bhér-o-me- eremk‘ h rāmas(i) φέρομεν bairam beremъ
2pl *bhér-e-te(-) er k‘ bháratha φέρετε bairiþ berete
3pl *bhér-o-nti beren bháranti φέρουσι(ν) bairand berǫtъ
(72) Present indicative paradigm of PIE *h1es- ‘to be’.
Proto-IE Arm. Hitt. Skt. Greek Latin Gothic OCS 1sg *h1és-mi em
šmi ásmi εἰμί sum im jesmь
2sg *h1és-si es šši ási εἶ / ἐσσί es is jesi
3sg *h1és-ti šzi ásti ἐστί(ν) est ist jestъ
1pl *h1s-mé- emk‘ smás ἐσμέν sumus sijum jesmъ
2pl *h1s-té- k‘ sthá ἐστέ estis sijuþ jeste
3pl *h1s-énti en ašanzi sánti εἰσί(ν) sunt sind sǫtъ
(73-74) Nasal presents: k‘anem
*l(e)ikw- ‘to leave’: Arm. k‘anem, 3sg.aor. e- ik‘ ‘to leave’,
Skt. rec-, pres. riṇ kti,
Gr. λείπω, λιμπάνω, Lat. inquō, īquī. PIE nasal-infixed present
*li-n-kw- was
remodeled to *likw-n - > Arm. pres. k‘anem.
PIE Greek Armenian
Present *li-n-kw- λιμπάνω vs. λείπω k‘anem
Thematic aorist *é-likw-et ἔλιπε e- ik‘
Imperative *líkwe λίπε ik‘
(75) *bheg- ‘to break’, nasal pres. *b
h-n-eg-: Arm. bekanem, 3sg.aor. e-bek , Skt.
bhañj-, bhanákti ‘to break’
*h2er- ‘to fix, put together’: Arm. aṙnem, 3sg.aor. ar-ar ‘to
make’: Gr. ἀραρίσ ω,
aor. ἤραρον ‘to fit, equip’, etc.
*dheh1- ‘to put’: Arm. dnem, 1sg.aor. e-di, impv. di-r, Skt.
hā-, Gr. τίϑημι, etc. Arm.
dnem = *di- + pres. suffix *ne- seen in e.g. aṙ-ne-m vs. aor.
ar-ar- ‘to make’. The
3sg.aor. e-d derive from *é-dheh1-t: Skt. hāt.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
17
*pr k -ske/o- (sk-present) ‘to ask’: Arm. harc‘anem, 3sg.aor.
e-harc‘, Ved. pr ccha mi,
Lat. p scō. Arm. 3sg.aor. e-harc‘ < them. impf. *e-prk -sk
-et: Skt. pr cchat; Arm.
impv. harc‘ vs. Skt. pr cch .
(76) *h2r-nu-: Arm. aṙnum, 1sg.aor. aṙ-i, 3sg.aor. aṙ ‘to gain,
obtain, win, take,
grasp’, Gr. ἄρνυμαι, aor. ἀρόμεν ‘to win, gain’, probably also
Av. ərənauu- ‘to grant,
allot, provide’.
*pleh1-: Arm. lnum or lnanim 3sg.aor. e- ic‘ ‘to fill, be
filled’ (cf. li ‘full’, li-r, i-
stem ‘plenitude’), Gr. πίμπλημι, -αμαι ‘to fill’, πλήρης ‘full’,
πλέως, Lat. p re ‘to
fill’, Skt. pari ‘to fill’, pres. píparti, *píprati, etc. For
the aorist e-li-c‘ < *e-p -ske,
with *-ske/o- added to the old root aorist *p -(s)-, cf. Ved.
prās, Gr. ἔπλησε.
*ṷes-nu-: Arm. z-genum, 3sg.aor. zge-c‘-a-w ‘to put on clothes’,
Gr. ἕννυμι ‘to
clothe’; cf. Hitt. u eš- ‘to be dressed’, Skt. váste ‘to be
clothed, wear’, etc. Note Arm.
z-gest, u-stem, i-stem, o-stem ‘dress, garment, clothes’ from
*ṷes-ti-: Lat. vestis, is f.
‘garments, clothing; clothes; cloth’, Goth. wasti ‘garment,
dress’.
*gwh
er- ‘warm’: Arm. ǰeṙnum or ǰeṙanim, 1sg.aor. ǰeṙ-a-y ‘to
be/become warm,
burn’ < *gwh
er-nu-, cf. *gwhr -n(e)u-: Skt. ghr ṇ ti ‘to glow, light’, etc.
Arm. aor.
ǰeṙ-a- from sigm. aor, *gwh
er-s-.
(77) Aorist
mnam ‘to stay, wait’
sirem ‘to love’
nayim ‘to look at’
t‘ołum ‘to let, permit’
Sg mnac‘i sirec‘i nayec‘ay t‘ołi
mnac‘er sirec‘er nayec‘ar t‘ołer
mnac‘ sireac‘ nayec‘aw (e)t‘oł
Pl mnac‘ak‘ sirec‘ak‘ nayec‘ak‘ t‘ołak‘
mnac‘ē/ik‘ sirec‘ē/ik‘ nayec‘ayk‘, -aruk‘ t‘ołē/ik‘
mnac‘in sirec‘in nayec‘an t‘ołin
Sg moṙanam ‘to forget’
anc‘anem ‘to pass’
cnanim ‘to beget’
ǰeṙnum ‘to get warm’
moṙac‘ay anc‘i cnay ǰeṙay
moṙac‘ar anc‘er cnar ǰeṙar
moṙac‘aw (ē)anc‘ cnaw ǰeṙaw
Pl moṙac‘ak‘ anc‘ak‘ cnak‘ ǰeṙak‘
moṙac‘ayk‘, -aruk‘ anc‘ē/ik‘ cnayk‘, -aruk‘ ǰeṙayk‘, -aruk‘
moṙac‘an anc‘in cnan ǰeṙan
(78-79) Aspects of historical phonology and morphology
Intriguing cases where phonological, morphological and/or
word-formative issues
seem to be interwoven. A typical example is the initial y-:
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
18
• prefix y- from PIE *h1en- ‘in’: y(-h)atanem vs. hatanem ‘to
cut’ (cf. Lat. in-cī ō ‘to cut into, engrave’ from cae ō ‘to hew,
cut’); *h1en-h3 rĝ
hi-
‘testicled, uncastrated, male (ram or buck)’ > Arm. y-orj,
i-stem ‘male
sheep, ram’ and Gr. ἔν-ορχις ‘provided with testicles’, cf.
ἔν-ορχ-ος, ἐν-όρχ-
ης also ‘buck’;
• phonological explanation: yisun ‘fifty’ vs. hing ‘five’;
probably: PIE *penk
w k mth2 ‘fifty’ > PArm. *hingisun : *(h)i(ŋ)isun >
*(h)i-ísun > *i-y-
ísun (y- is perhaps a glide);
• morphological explanation: y-aṙnem (aor. stem y-ari, imper.
ari) ‘to rise, arise, wake, resurrect’, < PIE *h3r-i- ‘to rise’:
Hitt. arai-
i / ari- ‘to rise,
arise, lift; to raise’, Lat. orior, -īrī, ortus ‘to rise’, Skt.
ar- ‘to set in motion,
move; to arouse, excite’, Gr. ὄρνυμι. Armenian *y-ar-i- and
impv. *ari
derive from *h3r-i-; *y-ar- (vs. imperative *ar-) is probably
from redupl.
pres. *Hi-H(e)r- > PArm. * īyar- > *(i)yar-, cf. Skt.
íyarti (next to ar-).
5. Onomastics
(80) Place names An Indo-European etymology of an Armenian
toponym can be considered more or
less reliable if it meets at least three or four of the
following requirements:
(1) the toponym is reliably attested in Classical Armenian
and/or foreign sources;
(2) its antiquity is guaranteed by attestations from cuneiform
sources of the first half of the first millennium BC;
(3) it contains an Armenian appellative of Indo-European origin;
(4) it contains an unattested appellative that can be
phonologically derived
from an Indo-European etymon; (5) the semantics of the
appellative is compatible with the concrete type of
a given toponym; (6) the semantic basis is confirmed by other
data, e.g. by other names of the
place; (7) the IE etymon is found in toponyms in other IE
languages.
(81) A few possible examples: • K ɫ (cf. Urart. Qulbi-tarrini)
from PIE *gwolbho- ‘womb’: Skt. gárbha-,
Av. garəβa- ‘womb’, cf. Gr. δελφύς, δολφός ‘womb’, Δελφοί.
• Gis, gen. Gis-o-y (a village in Uti-k‘), from PIE *u (e/ )ik
-: Skt. íś- ‘settlement’, MPers. vis ‘manor-house, village’, OCS
ьsь. For the
semantics, cf. Agarak . Note also Urart. URU
Uiše and URU
Uiši(ni).
• erm, the Bohtan-su; ǰerm ‘warm(th)’ derives from PIE
*gwhermo-, cf. Γερμ- < Thracian *germo-, Dacian Germi-sara (both
with thermal springs).
• Sim (a famous mountain in Sasun) < PIE *k ieh1mo-, cf. Skt.
śyām - ‘black, dark’, yāmā name of a river, Av. Siiāmaka- name of a
mountain, Lith.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
19
š mas ‘blue-grey’. Mountains are frequently named ‘dark’ or
‘black’. Note
the other name of Sim, namely Sev-sar, lit.
“Black-mountain”.
(82) Place names in the 3rd and 1st millennia BC
The toponymical studies concerning these periods are mainly
based on superficial
similarities and lack thorough etymological treatment.
►V. Xač‘atryan 2012
• URUAparḫu a comp. of Armenian apar/ṙ ‘rock’ and xul ‘deaf’; •
URUAlatarma/e vs. Arm. a k‘ ‘depth, abyss’ and tarm ‘group’; •
URUMararḫa vs. Arm. mar ‘master’ (only in Čaṙəntir, and is an
Aramaic or
Syriac borrowing) and Hitt. arḫa ‘border’;
• URUMezzari vs. Arm. mec ‘great’ and ari ‘valiant, brave’
►Karagyozyan 1998: • KURṶiṭeruḫi > Gugar-k‘; • KURAṭezaine
> Arkaz; • URUḪundur > Č‘awn ur; • Vač‘ur from Bexur,
reflecting Indo-Eur. *u es-r ‘spring (season)’
(83) Personal names
The most remarkable achievement in this field is Ačaṙyan’s
dictionary of personal
names (5 vols, 1942-62).
(84) Armenian anthroponyms with underlying native
(Indo-European) appellatives
include:
• Arew m. ‘Sun’, • Dustr f. ‘daughter’ (cf. Duxt/t‘ar, Iranian),
• Eznik m. (ezn ‘ox, bullock’), • Eł ayr(ik) m. ‘brother’, • Ən
ak/k‘ m. (inj ‘panther, leopard’), • Koriwn m. ‘cub, whelp’, •
Hawuk m. (haw ‘bird, rooster’, cf. also haw ‘grandfather’), • Lusik
m., later f. (loys ‘light’), • Mrǰiwnik m. (mrǰiwn ‘ant’).
(85) Theoretically, these names may originate directly from
Indo-European,
although this is hard to prove. The probability increases if the
Armenian name:
derives from an Indo-European etymon that underlies anthroponyms
also in cognate languages, e.g.:
Arǰuk m., a hypocoristic form of arǰ ‘bear’, cf. Lat. Ursula
‘little bear’,
note also Arm. Aršak m., an Iranian loanword;
Arew m. from arew ‘sun’, cf. Skt. ravi- m. ‘sun’, which is also
found as a
masculine anthroponym.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
20
is synchronically opaque, e.g. Hawroy, probably from IE *ph2tro-
(cf. Arm. hayr ‘father’, gen. hawr), compare Greek anthroponyms
with πατρο-;
is attested in ancient sources of the Urartian and earlier
periods, e.g. Aram (cf. Skt. Rāma-) vs. Urartian Aramu /
Arame/a.
(86) Mythological lexicon
Native Armenian theonyms replaced by those of Iranian origin.
The Iranian
divinities do not always fully match their Armenian namesakes
functionally.
• Pre-Christian Armenian state pantheon: mainly theonyms of
Iranian origin: Aramazd, Vahagn, Mihr, Tir, Anahit, perhaps also
Nanē.
• The only deity of the state pantheon with a native Armenian
name is Astł-ik (astł ‘star’ from PIE *h2ster- ‘star’).
(87) A few examples of native Armenian mythonyms, possibly
inherited from PIE:
• Ayg ‘Dawn Goddess’ (Van, Moks etc. ɛk‘ in wedding ritual
songs) from PIE ‘Dawn Goddess’ (Skt. uṣ s-, Gr. ἕως, Lat. aurōra,
etc. all deified);
*h2(e)us(s)i > *aw(h)i - > ayg ‘dawn’.
• Andndayin Ōj, the Abyssal Serpent, cf. Skt. Áhi- Budhnyà-; the
Armenian Abyssal tree (andndayin caṙ) and the Rigvedic Cosmic tree
(RV 1.24.7) are
located in ‘bottomless space, abyss’, Arm. an-dund and Skt.
a-budhná-
from *n -bhud
hno-.
• Arew, gen. Areg- ‘Sun God’ (Movsēs Xorenacʻi 2.8 and folkloric
texts); Arm. arew/g- ‘sun’ and Skt. ravi- m. ‘sun, sun-god’
(Upaniṣad+) derive
from *h2reu-i-, an Armeno-Aryan poetical or sacred (marked)
designation
of ‘sun’ replacing the PIE profane (unmarked) word for ‘sun’,
*seh2ul-.
Supplement
(88) Armenian dialects
The foundations of Armenian dialectology were laid by Hrač‘ya
Ačaṙyan: Armenian
dialectology (1911, cf. 1909), Armenian dialectological
dictionary (1913).
(89) Dialectal words: old or new? ►Archaisms: methodology
• Arm. dial. anum vs. ClArm anun ‘name’ from *anuwn < PIE
*h3neh3-mn ‘name’ has been treated as a reflection of older *anumn.
Methodologically
more cogent: -m- from oblique *anVman-, cf. paštawn vs. gen.
pašt-aman
‘service’.
►Internal treatment comes first
• Łarabaɫ rɛk‘nak (vs. Classical aregakn ‘sun’) has been treated
as an archaic reflex of the IE proto-form allegedly with an initial
*r-. In fact,
rɛk‘nak is a marginal form; note iərík‘nak, i
əríhynak, ərɛ k‘nak, əríhynak.
Regular reduction of the initial pretonic syllable in
polysyllabic words in
Łarabaɫ: a(r)celi ‘razor’ > cíli, asaran c‘ ‘oil-mill’ >
səran c‘.
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
21
(90) Reading
1. Դու կաս եւ մնաս: Du kas ew mnas.
2. Աստուած կայ եւ մնայ յաւիտեան: Astuac kay ew mnay yawitean
3. Արամ ծնանի զԱրայն Գեղեցիկ: Aram cnani zArayn Gełec‘ik.
4. Գամ եւ առնում զձեզ առ իս: Gam ew aṙnum z ez aṙ is.
5. Եւ գնաց Տուբիա կնաւ իւրով: Ew gnac‘ Tu ia knaw iwr .
6. Հայեցաւ նա ի բարձանց: ayec‘aw na i ar anc‘.
7. Դու արարեր զերկինս և զերկիր: Du ararer zerkins ew zerkir.
8. Եւ առ ի պտղոյ նորա եւ եկեր: Ew aṙ i ptł y n ra ew eker.
9. Նա եբեր նմա գինի: Na eber nma gini.
10. Եւ զարծաթն իմ եբեր Ew zarcat‘n im e er.
Glossary (for personal pronouns, see the table below)
aṙ prep. ‘at, near, next to, by, before’
aṙnum ‘to receive, take, take away, ravish, rob’
astuac ‘God’
arcat‘, o-stem ‘silver; money, wealth’
barjr, gen.sg. barj-u, gen.pl. ar anc‘ ‘high, elevated; height,
elevation’
berem ‘to bring’
gam ‘to come’
gełec‘ik ‘pretty, handsome’
gini ‘wine’
gnam ‘to go, depart, repair’
e-, augment: 3sg.aorist erkin, i-stem ‘sky, heaven’
erkir, a-stem ‘earth; land’
ew, conj. ‘and; also’
hayim ‘to look’
iwr ‘his own, etc.’ (refl. pron.)
kam ‘to be, exist; to stand, remain; to stop, stay, wait’
kin, gen. kn ǰ, instr. knaw or kanamb ‘woman; wife’
mnam ‘to saty, wait’
yawitean ‘eternally, perpetually; eternity, perpetuity’ -n
definite article ‘the’
ptuł, o-stem ‘fruit’
utem, 1sg.aor. keray ‘to eat’
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
22
Personal pronouns
Sg N es ‘you’ du ‘you’ na ‘he, she, it’
Acc (z)is (z)k‘ez (z)na
G im k‘ nora
D inj k‘ez nma
Abl yin n i k‘ n i nman
I inew k‘ew novaw
Pl N mek‘ uk‘ n k‘a
Acc (z)mez (z)jez (z)nosa
G mer jer n c‘a
D mez jez n c‘a
Abl i m nǰ i nǰ i n c‘an
I mewk‘, meawk‘ ewk‘, eawk‘ n k‘awk‘
I thank you for your attention!
HRACH MARTIROSYAN (Leiden University)
[email protected]
Selected literature
Ačaṙyan, H. 1971-79. (HAB), Hayerēn armatakan baṙaran, in 4 vols
(second edition).
Yerevan: University Press.
Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek
(with the assistance of Lucien
van Beek). 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Clackson, James 1994. The linguistic relationship between
Armenian and Greek. Oxford,
Cambridge: Blackwell (Publications of the Philological Society;
30).
Gilibert A., Bobokhyan A., Hnila P. 2012. Dragon stones in
context: The discovery of
high-altitude burial grounds with sculpted stelae in the
Armenian mountains. In: Mitteilungen
der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 144: 93-132.
Lamberterie, Charles de 1992. Introduction à l’arménien
classique. In: LALIES 10 (Aussois,
1988-1989): 234-289.
Lamberterie, Charles de 2013. Grec, phrygien, arménien: des
anciens aux modernes. In:
Journal des Savants (janvier-juin 2013): 3-69.
mailto:[email protected]
-
Hrach Martirosyan, Origins and historical development of the
Armenian language 2014
23
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: language,
archaeology and myth.
London: Thames and Hudson.
Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. 1997 (eds.), Encyclopedia of
Indo-European culture. London,
Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
Mallory, J. P. & Adams, D. Q. 2006. The Oxford introduction
to Proto-Indo-European and
the Proto-Indo-European world. MOxford: Oxford University
Press.
Martirosyan, Hrach K. 2007. Mediterranean-Pontic substratum
words. In: Aramazd:
Armenian journal of Near-Eastern studies, vol. 2: 88-123.
2009. Armenian mawr ‘mud, marsh’ and its hydronymical value. In:
Aramazd: Armenian
journal of Near Eastern studies, vol. 4.1: 73-85.
2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon.
Leiden, Boston: Brill.
(Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 8).
2012. European and Mediterranean substrate words in Armenian.
In: Etymology and the
European lexicon: 14th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische
Gesellschaft (17-22 September
2012, University of Copenhagen). Abstracts: 75-76.
2013. The place of Armenian in the Indo-European language
family: the relationship with
Greek and Indo-Iranian. In: Journal of language relationship
(Вопросы языкового родства)
10: 85-137.
Prepar. The ‘farn’ of mountainous spring, the Dawn goddess and
the ritual of head and hide
within the semantic framework of the Višap stones. In
preparation.